Insert operator at the active selection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses rich behavioral traits: atomicity, compare-and-swap semantics, idempotency key, bounded before/after connector receipts, rollback state, preservation of fan-out siblings, ALLOW_EXEC=0, and exclusion of raw Python/mouse interactions. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint:false, openWorldHint:true, destructiveHint:false, so the description adds substantial safety and side-effect context beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise behavioral guarantees. Every clause adds meaningful information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (editor-context compare-and-swap, idempotency, atomic placement), the description is remarkably complete: it covers atomicity, exact-selection requirements, rollback, preservation of fan-outs, and execution restrictions. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here, and no major gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of expected_context ('exact editor-context compare-and-swap') and idempotency_key but does not add extra syntax, formatting, or parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already explains.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a precise action: 'Atomically insert one same-family operator on one deterministic downstream edge of the exactly selected/current TouchDesigner operator.' This distinguishes the tool from generic creation (create_td_node) and connection (connect_nodes) by emphasizing atomicity, deterministic downstream edge, and exact selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys when to use the tool by stating requirements: 'exact editor-context compare-and-swap' and 'idempotency key.' It also discloses exclusions ('never invokes raw Python, mouse-interactive placeOPs, or implicit pane selection'), giving clear operational boundaries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for different scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.